Posted on 12/02/2003 12:59:42 PM PST by tpaine
High Court Won't Review Ban on Assault Weapons
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.
Without comment, the justices let stand the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms.
The ruling differed from the position taken by the Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft, who changed the government's long-standing policy, and by a federal appeals court in New Orleans that ruled that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.
California enacted the nation's most sweeping assault weapons ban in 1999, amending legislation adopted 10 years earlier. The state legislature amended the law to ban assault weapons based on a host of features, instead of specific makes and models.
A group of individuals who own assault weapons or want to buy them challenged the law, saying it violated the Second Amendment and other constitutional rights.
A federal judge dismissed the constitutional claims, and the appeals court agreed in upholding the law.
The appeals court said the Second Amendment protected the gun rights of militias, not individuals. The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Gary Gorski, an attorney for those challenging the law, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying the Constitution protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms without the threat of state confiscation or compulsory registration.
The National Rifle Association supported the appeal.
The ORIGINAL writing of the 2nd Amendment has three commas.
"A well regulated Militia(1), being necessary to the security of a free State(2), the right of the people to keep and bear arms(3), shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
I'm not a scholar in English, but I seem to recall my teacher of many years ago saying that words between commas in a sentence should not change the meaning of the original sentence, only explain it better to a reader.
#1 is the basic intent of the sentence. All black letters.
#1 A well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed."
In #2 I retracted, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Now the original meaning of the sentence is explained a little better than the original.
#2 A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."
In #3 I retracted, "being necessary to the security of a free State". Now the original meaning of the sentence still is explained a little better than the original.
#3 A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
When "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is included into the basic sentence, now we see the FULL meaning the Founders had when they wrote the complete sentence.
This is the gun control peoples writing of the 2nd. Note the ONE comma.
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state(1), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
They are insinuating that the the original sentence is "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and that "the security of a free state" should be controlled by "A well-regulated militia. "
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not infringed because only the Militia should have these arms, not the common citizen.
I know scholars have much deeper and clearer explanations than I do, but my explanation seems to help people understand the Founders intentions without having to read numerous pages.
According to Judge Robert H. Bork and other authoritarians, the founders intended the 2nd Amendment to cover a States right to bear arms. According to the plain English of the various Founders and that found in the Bill of Rights itself, the Amendment was written to cover individual rights.
Their non-ruling simply means that less than 4 judges thought the matter important enough to hear the case. IOWs they're satisfied with the status quo.
I have said it before in this forum, and I will say it again...
There is no incentive for the courts or Congress to rule positively on the Second Amendment. There also is no incentive for GOA or the NRA to see an end to the discussion. Their interests lie in perpetuating the issue, and thus their own future.
The only way that the Second Amendment will be protected and interpreted as a protection of an individual right is for those 80-million Ameircans to take it to the ballot box.
The Second Amendment needs to be the number one litmus test for earning our vote.
When, and only when, the political establishment realizes that no one from dog catcher to President can be elected without complete and active support of the Second Amendment, we will have assured ourselves and those who follow some measure of liberty.
It has to come from the grass roots, folks, not from highly paid lobbyists and arrogant politicians.
Well said. All the same, this event demonstrates the need to get a Supreme Court that will uphold the Constitution.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
If you are immune from prosecution over owning firearms at the Federal level, then you are immune at the States level.
When in doubt see Art VI, para II
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
And just in case that isn't unambiguous ENOUGH... they then went on to add in the 10th and 14th which are VERY real amenments that were fully ratified.
That will only happen when we elect people who will appoint and confirm people who will support the Constitution.
The implications are truely global in scope. This does not invalidate the fact that we NEVER should have gotten to this point in the first place. The USSC cannot duck this issue forever. But as we continually see, our USSC is broken and our legislaotrs are pretty much doing whatever the hell they want.
"Without comment, the justices let stand the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco"
Anyone see a conflict in the above two statements? You should.
The USSC let stand a ruling by the appeals court -- the appeals court stated there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.
The erroneous conclusion is that since the USSC declined to review the case (WITHOUT COMMENT), they support the appellate court. Not necessarily true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.